| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks |
| Date: | 2002-08-05 15:18:38 |
| Message-ID: | 3D4E974E.7070104@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> The bloat would scale with the size of your schema, not with the amount
> of data in your tables (unless you have "name" columns in your user
> tables, which is something we've always discouraged). template1 is
> clearly a worst-case scenario, percentagewise, for NAMEDATALEN.
>
> I'm quite prepared to believe that the net cost is "a couple megs per
> database" more or less independent of how much data you store. Maybe
> that's negligible these days, or maybe it isn't ...
Seems to me it's negligible for the vast majority of applications. I
*know* it is for any appplication that I have.
We can always tell people who are doing embedded application work to
bump *down* NAMEDATALEN.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ulrich Neumann | 2002-08-05 15:25:21 | PostgreSQL 7.2.1 on NetWare |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-05 15:12:27 | Re: anonymous composite types for Table Functions (aka |